Uzbekistan: Land Improvement Project

Transcription

1 Validation Report August 2017 Uzbekistan: Land Improvement Project Reference Number: PVR-504 Project Number: Loan/Grant Numbers: 2245, 2246, and 0080

2 ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank DMF design and monitoring framework EIRR economic internal rate of return GAP gender action plan GEF ha Global Environment Facility hectare IED Independent Evaluation Department LRF Land Reclamation Fund MAWR Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources MTR midterm review O&M operation and maintenance PCR project completion report PMO project management office PPMS project performance monitoring system TA technical assistance NOTE In this report, $ refers to US dollars. Director General Deputy Director General Director Team Leader M. Taylor-Dormond, Independent Evaluation Department (IED) V. Salze-Lozac h, IED W. Kolkma, Thematic and Country Division, IED A. Brubaker, Sector and Project Division, IED The guidelines formally adopted by the Independent Evaluation Department (IED) on avoiding conflict of interest in its independent evaluations were observed in the preparation of this report. To the knowledge of IED management, there were no conflicts of interest of the persons preparing, reviewing, or approving this report. The final ratings are the ratings of IED and may or may not coincide with those originally proposed by the consultant engaged for this report. In preparing any evaluation report, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, IED does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

3 PROJECT BASIC DATA Project Number PCR Circulation Date 8 Aug 2016 Loan and Grant Numbers 2245, 2246, and 0080 PCR Validation Date Aug 2017 Project Name Land Improvement Project Sector and Subsector Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development Agricultural drainage Strategic Agenda Environmentally sustainable growth Safeguard Environment B Categories Involuntary Resettlement C Indigenous Peoples C Country Uzbekistan Approved ($ million) Actual ($ million) ADB Financing ($ million) ADF: (Loan 2246) Total Project Costs OCR: (Loan 2245) Project Loan Loan 2245 Loan 2246 (SDR equivalent, million) (18.52) (17.59) Borrower Beneficiaries Others Cofinancier Global Environment Total Cofinancing Facility (Grant 0080) Approval Date 24 Jul 2006 Effectiveness Date 26 Dec Nov 2007 Signing Date 2 Apr 2007 Closing Date 31 Mar Sep 2015 Project Officers IED Review Director Team Leader T. Miyazato L. Adriano R. Takaku T. Nasirov P. Bozakov T. Nasirov Location ADB Headquarters ADB Headquarters ADB Headquarters Uzbekistan Resident Mission Uzbekistan Resident Mission Uzbekistan Resident Mission W. Kolkma, IETC, IED A. Brubaker, Senior Evaluation Specialist, IESP* From Jul 2006 Jan 2008 Jan 2009 Dec 2009 Jan 2011 Nov 2011 To Dec 2007 Dec 2008 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 Oct 2011 Sep 2015 ADB = Asian Development Bank; ADF = Asian Development Fund; IETC = Thematic and Country Division; IESP = Sector and Project Division,; OCR = ordinary capital resources; PCR = project completion report. SDR = special drawing right *Team members: S.P. Venkata (Evaluation Specialist), M.J. Dimayuga (Senior Evaluation Officer), A. Taketani (Consultant)

4 2 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Rationale 1. In Uzbekistan, agriculture remains the major source of livelihood for about 15 million people or 60% of the population. 1 At the same time, land degradation is a serious economic, social, and environmental problem affecting the performance of the agriculture sector. Uzbekistan has an arid climate and agriculture depends on irrigation. In 2006, at the time of project preparation, irrigation efficiency was low (more than 60% of water diverted for irrigations failed to reach the fields) and agriculture sector policies (e.g., mandatory production targets) further contributed to deteriorating land and water resources. The Government of Uzbekistan recognized the problems and aimed to increase farm productivity by rehabilitating key irrigation and drainage facilities as a national priority, and through a gradual transition to a market economy. 2. This project targeted nine districts in Bukhara, Kashkadarya, and Navoy provinces, focusing on areas with severe land degradation. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is a major supporter of agriculture sector development. The project built on ADB experiences from its agriculture sector projects on land management, irrigation, and drainage in Uzbekistan 2 and in the region. Building on lessons from these projects, it aimed to address land degradation in a multifaceted way covering incentives, institutions, and infrastructure. It incorporated elements supporting an enabling policy environment, including improved land access security. It also supported capacity building for land and water management institutions and rehabilitation of land management infrastructure. B. Expected Impacts, Outcomes, and Outputs 3. The expected impact of the project was increased income of farmers in nine districts in three provinces of Uzbekistan. The expected outcome was improved agriculture land quality and productivity in the project area. 4. The project had five outputs. The first output was implemented policy reforms through (i) enhanced incentives, including reduced quotas; (ii) improved procurement prices aligned with international prices; (iii) deregulated (free) marketing of produce and liberalized farm management; and (iv) improved land tenure. The second output was improved management practices through adoption of integrated land reclamation, water, and land management practices. The third output was increased institutional capacity through strengthened government and nongovernment water management institutions. The fourth output was rehabilitated land and water infrastructure in drainage network and irrigation control structures. The fifth and final output was operational and effective project management and monitoring systems. A Global Environment Facility (GEF) grant complemented the project, providing additional activities under four of the five outputs No changes were made in the project design and monitoring framework (DMF) during project implementation. The DMF did not include any gender-specific targets or require genderdisaggregated data, however, a gender action plan (GAP) was developed to establish quotas and ensure women s involvement in project implementation. 1 ADB Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loans and Technical Assistance Grant. Republic of Uzbekistan: Land Improvement Project. Manila. 2 These are the Grain Productivity Improvement Project, the Amu Zang Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, and the Agriculture Sector Review and Planning Technical Assistance. 3 ADB Republic of Uzbekistan: Land Improvement Project (Global Environment Facility Grant Financing). Manila.

5 3 C. Provision of Inputs 6. The project was approved 24 July 2006, and became effective 9 November Original closing date was 31 March 2013, extended once by 2 years to 31 March This was due to slow initial implementation caused by a delay in loan effectiveness, and subsequently by a delay in fielding of consultants, and difficulties in attracting credible contractors The project was estimated to cost $79.2 million. This included a blend of two loans: (i) a loan of $32.6 million from the ordinary capital resources; and (ii) a loan in various currencies equivalent to SDR18,515,000 ($27.6 million) from the special funds resources, a government contribution of $15.6 million, and beneficiaries contribution of $400,000. In addition, the GEF provided a parallel grant of $3.0 million. The GEF grant was approved in July 2007 to finance additional activities under the project The actual project expenditures totaled $105.2 million, including the GEF grant. The increase was caused mainly by a price escalation in the cost of fuel, construction materials, and labor and by a substantial increase in the cost of on-farm works. The cost increase was shouldered by the government, whose actual financing amounted to $36.6 million and beneficiaries contribution through on-farm works, which amounted to $13.2 million. ADB contribution was kept as planned. In total, $52.9 million were disbursed from the two loans ($25.9 million from the Ordinary Capital Resources loan and $27.0 million equivalent from the special funds loan) and $2.5 million from the GEF grant. Civil works accounted for the bulk of project costs at $92.3 million or 88% of total project cost, followed by $5.31 million or 5% for consulting services. 9. In total, 70 contracts were awarded. These include nine civil works contracts for the rehabilitation of primary and inter-farm collector drains using international competitive bidding, and five for the rehabilitation of collectors and demonstration farms using national competitive bidding. Three of the international competitive bidding contracts required rebidding and all encountered implementation delays. 10. At appraisal, 963 person-months of consulting services (131 of international and 832 of national) were envisaged to assist the project and a 5-year contract with an international firm was signed on 15 August Actual consulting services totaled 1,121 person-months (158 of international and 963 of national) and costs amounted to $5.31 million compared to an estimated $4.72 million. In addition, 142 person-months of consulting service were envisaged to assist in implementing the GEF grant project. At completion, 131 person-months of consulting services were used for the GEF grant, at a cost of $768,000 as compared to the original allocation of $887, A technical assistance (TA) grant of $800,000 was approved in July The TA grant was to promote and facilitate the implementation of agriculture sector reforms through an analysis and review of the policy framework and monitoring capacity. Consultants were fielded in June 2007 and the TA grant closed 18 months later by the end of 2008, in line with plans. A total of 4 ADB Project Completion Report. Uzbekistan: Land Improvement Project. Manila. 5 The GEF-financed activities were to (i) address regulatory conditions for improved land management; (ii) foster coordination among line agencies to ensure an integrated, participatory approach to project activities; (iii) involve all stakeholders in planning, implementing, and monitoring sustainable land management; (iv) pilot-test innovative technical systems and public private partnerships; and (v) include monitoring and evaluation to increase the replicability of the project. 6 ADB Technical Assistance Completion Report. Implementation of Monitoring and Policy Reforms in the Agriculture Sector. Manila.

6 4 57 person-months (13 international and 44 national) were provided against the planned 59 person-months, and $677,177 or 85% of the available funds were utilized. 12. The project was classified as category B under the ADB environment assessment. An initial environmental examination was undertaken and an environmental monitoring plan prepared and implemented. The summary poverty reduction and social strategy identified no risks related to involuntary resettlement and indigenous peoples and the project was classified as social safeguards category C. The project was classified under Some Gender Elements, and a GAP was prepared. D. Implementation Arrangements 13. As the designated executing agency, the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR) was tasked to execute and coordinate the project, with the deputy minister of water resource management appointed as project director. A project steering committee was established in September 2007, which was later abolished in August 2009 and replaced by a highlevel interministerial council. The council was established to provide policy guidance and coordination at all levels, and met regularly throughout project implementation. The Rural Restructuring Agency was the implementing agency. A project management office (PMO) led by a full-time project manager, and three project implementation units, headed by site managers, were established in January Overall, the implementation arrangements were adequate and no major changes were required during the implementation period. Progress reports were submitted and audits conducted regularly. 14. Compliance with covenants was generally satisfactory. Of the 35 covenants, 26 were fully complied with. Two covenants were partially complied with as this required presidential resolutions, where cotton and wheat quotas were issued, however, the resolutions were not always implemented at the local level. Seven covenants related to on-farm irrigation and beneficiary cost-recovery became redundant, following government s decision to fully finance this component. 15. The project identified risks related to government commitment and institutional weaknesses, and the inadequate maintenance of rehabilitated irrigation and drainage schemes. These risks were addressed through substantial focus on policy support and capacity building of water sector and land management institutions, and through stakeholder consultations and enhanced capacity, among others, through support to water consumers associations. 16. The TA grant was implemented between April 2007 and June 2009, in support of output 1 of the loan, which was focused on policy reform. The TA grant was rated successful, however, actual implementation of reforms and their sustainability depends on other factors, such as political will and commitment. The GEF consultant mobilized in September 2010 focused on promoting innovative land management, enhancing the replicability of the project, and generating additional global environmental benefits. II. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AND RATINGS A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 17. The project completion report (PCR) rated the project relevant. At appraisal, the project objectives were in line with the government s strategy of highlighting the need for rehabilitation and modernization of agricultural irrigation and drainage systems. It was well aligned with the ADB Country Strategy and Program, which emphasized the country s serious land degradation and irrigation management problems and recognized agriculture as the key sector

7 for assistance. 7 The project outcome improved agricultural land quality and productivity in the project area remained strategically relevant throughout the implementation and in step with the Country Strategy and Program, which reiterated the need to focus on improved land and water use management. 8 The project focused on geographical areas most severely affected by land degradation, and involved project beneficiaries directly through on-farm rehabilitation works. In 2006, when the original loan was approved, the project focus on a mix of (i) policy reform, (ii) institutional strengthening and capacity building, and (iii) land and water infrastructure rehabilitation, was appropriate. The indicators were well elaborated and generally appropriate to measure against a project s success. They reflected the design summary at impact as well as outcome and output level, and included specific baselines and targets at all levels. The original DMF design remained relevant throughout implementation. Safeguards classifications were appropriate. 18. In 2011, the project midterm review (MTR) mission recommended an extension of the loan and grant closing dates, and a revision of the overall project cost due to escalating prices of fuel and labor and the underestimated cost of on-farm rehabilitation works (paras. 6 8). While the project foresaw the need to strengthen land rights, it did not foresee the strong reluctance of project beneficiaries to pay for the rehabilitation of facilities on land that they do not formally own. The government shouldered the additional costs and implemented on-farm drainage and irrigation facilities through the Land Reclamation Fund (LRF) and community-based works. No loan proceeds were used for on-farm facilities, thus, there was no cost recovery involved. Despite the largely unforeseen changes in implementing on-farm facilities, the overall project objectives were well-aligned with the government and beneficiary needs and remained relevant throughout implementation. This validation considers the project relevant. B. Effectiveness in Achieving Project Outcomes and Outputs 19. The PCR assessed the project as highly effective. This is based on an analysis that the project exceeded all its outcome targets, as follows: (i) Land area with soil salinity decreased by 37,807 hectares (ha) compared with the target of 31,400 ha (from 52,650 to 21,250 ha); (ii) cotton yields increased from 2.0 tons/ha to 3.0 tons/ha as targeted within 5 years of project completion; and (iii) wheat yields increased substantially above target, from 2.0 tons/ha to 5.5 tons/ha as compared to 3.5 tons/ha targeted within 5 years of project completion. 20. Substantial achievement was made in reducing soil salinity. However, the PCR assessment is not fully aligned with the DMF targets, as it combines the decrease in land with moderate soil salinity and land with severe soil salinity, without adjusting the total area. The project final report, 9 presents this more clearly as it has separate reporting for moderate and severe soil salinity. In summary, the performance target aimed for a 60% decrease from 52,560 ha to 21,250 ha while the project achieved a decrease of 52% for areas with moderate soil salinity (from 52,006 ha to 24,904 ha), and a decrease of 70% for areas with severe soil salinity (from 15,120 ha to 4,465 ha). This translates to an overall decrease of 37,757 ha or 56% (from 67,126 ha to 29,369 ha), which is slightly below the targeted 60% decrease. Overall, however, the area improved exceeds the DMF target. 21. On policy reforms, under output 1, two of three targets were exceeded. The gap between cotton and wheat procurement price and the international price was reduced by 11.5%, just above the target of 10%. Registered land use contracts of private farms was also improved and 5 7 ADB Country Strategy and Program Update for Uzbekistan. Manila. 8 ADB Country Strategy and Program for Uzbekistan. Manila. 9 Egis International/IKS Project Final Report. Republic of Uzbekistan. Land Improvement Project. ADB Loan 2245/2246 (SF). Tashkent.

8 6 increased above the target (100% compared to targeted 50%). However, the cotton and wheat quota reduction was considered partly achieved. Although the required government decrees were issued, an above-quota market remains absent, particularly for cotton. For the fourth part of output 1 improved land tenure no target was set, however, regulations strengthening land tenure were introduced during project implementation. For output 2, two of three targets on improved management practices were met. Improved on-farm water management and agronomic practices were adopted over 160,000 ha, compared to the target of 60,785 ha. Increase in the area of alternative crops totaled 21,601 ha, compared to the target of 15,030 ha. Conservation agriculture practices were, however, only introduced in 245 ha compared to the targeted 1,000 ha. Under output 3 increased institutional capacity the first and third targets were fully met while the second target on effective and timely irrigation water supplies was substantially met at 96%. Targets for output 4 rehabilitated land and water infrastructure showed mixed results. Targets for irrigation efficiency were met, assumed to be 55% 60% compared to the target of 57%. Areas with poor drainage were substantially reduced at 49% compared to the target of 52%. Areas with medium salinity were only partially met with 21% achievement compared to the target of 69%. Targets for output 5 operational and effective project management and monitoring systems were all met. 22. Environmentally, the project caused no adverse effects, but contributed directly to halting land degradation. It would have been useful if the PCR had provided more details on the progress made on the GEF activities. The project met most targets set in the GAP and did not require relocation nor affected indigenous peoples. 23. Overall, the project has substantially met most of its output targets. The support to policy reforms is crucial and the project contributed to some of these but more reforms are still needed. On outcome targets, the targets for wheat and cotton yields were met but these are, at best, on par with yields in the country. The farmers unwillingness to contribute financially and the limited progress in introducing conservation agricultural practices on farms questions the extent to which farmers recognize and are willing to pursue new and more environmentally appropriate practices. The PCR conclusion on land area with soil salinity is somewhat skewed, and differs from the project final report that indicates a partly met target. Nevertheless, it is clear that the project has contributed toward the outcome of improving agricultural land quality and productivity and that most targets have been at least substantially met. This validation considers the project effective. C. Efficiency of Resource Use 24. The PCR rated the project efficient. The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) was calculated at 22.1% at appraisal, compared to 15.1% at completion. The adjustment was attributed mainly to the increased overall project costs (from an initial estimate of $79 million, to the actual $105 million a 33% increase) and a 2-year delay in project completion. The sensitivity analysis included several scenarios, where each had an EIRR that remained above the 12% economic cost of capital. The substantial cost increases did affect the EIRR, however, additional costs were shouldered by the government and no additional ADB resources were required. However, the EIRR is difficult to assess for this validation as the assumptions supporting the analysis in the PCR are not well articulated. 25. The project suffered initial delays in loan effectiveness (loan approval was 24 July 2006 while loan effectiveness was 9 November 2007), and subsequent delays in consultant mobilization and awards of larger civil work contracts. A 2-year extension was approved at project midterm. Despite delays, the borrower implemented the project efficiently and responded to requests with prompt action. Reports and audits were submitted regularly and the project was equipped with a project performance monitoring system (PPMS), including environmental monitoring. Relevant covenants were generally complied with (para. 14). The project is considered efficient.

9 7 D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 26. The PCR rated the project likely sustainable. During , the Government of Uzbekistan provided substantial funds for drainage system operation and maintenance (O&M), including $50.7 million for the construction of drainage systems through the LRF, established in 2008 under Ministry of Finance. Following the MTR mission, and as per reformulation, the LRF also implemented the project s on-farm drainage works, financed by the government (para. 8). The government was also prepared to continue to provide O&M after project completion. The GEF grant contributed to enhanced institutional capacity on environmental monitoring, and several government decrees put in place during project implementation period further contribute to enhanced sustainability. Adequate attention was also given to mitigate key risks to insufficient O&M (capacity as well as funds) and lack of government commitment (political will). The capacity of agencies involved was also enhanced. However, much of the longer-term viability and environmental sustainability will depend on the behavior of farmers going forward as new techniques and practices (e.g., crop rotation) are required. The reluctance of farmers to financially contribute to on-farm improvements and the lack of progress in introducing on-farm conservation practices will potentially limit sustainability without further reforms and greater capacity. This validation, nevertheless, views the project likely sustainable. III. OTHER PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS A. Preliminary Assessment of Development Impact 27. The PCR rated the impact of the project substantial. Impact level targets set at appraisal have all been exceeded and by project completion, poverty incidence in the project area had been reduced from 34.3% to 15%, compared to the target of 28.8%. Average per capita income increased by 25% as compared to the targeted 23%. According to the PCR, the annual net income of private farms increased tenfold from $1,275 to $12,840 or $428/ha, compared to the target of $2,900, or $97/ha. However, the numbers differ from the project final report, indicating an average net income of $226/ha for cotton and $278/ha for wheat, which is lower than indicated in the PCR but still above target. In summary, the target area has benefited from substantial poverty reduction and in economic impact. However, limited evidence is provided that will directly attribute impact level achievements to project interventions. Nevertheless, this validation assesses the project impact satisfactory. 10 B. Performance of the Borrower and Executing Agency 28. The PCR rated the performance of MAWR satisfactory. It noted the timely decision of MAWR to finance and implement the on-farm rehabilitation component. Combined with the 2-year extension of implementation period, this contributed considerably to speeding up the initially low implementation progress. It also noted MAWR s overall adequate capacity to manage and monitor the project. Reports and audits were submitted regularly and no issues on borrower performance were raised in the regular ADB review missions. The GEF grant provided additional support to MAWR in monitoring and evaluating the project s environmental impact. This validation views the performance of the borrower and MAWR satisfactory. 10 Beginning May 2016, the Independent Evaluation Department adopts the ratings terminology of the April 2016 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Public Sector Operations on development impacts. In this terminology, a highly satisfactory rating coincides with the substantial rating that was used before.

10 8 C. Performance of the Asian Development Bank and Cofinanciers 29. The PCR rated the performance of ADB satisfactory. ADB conducted regular project review missions to track and review project implementation progress. The initial slow progress was noted and well-targeted adjustments were made at the 2011 MTR mission. The project was managed from ADB headquarters during after which it was managed from the Uzbekistan Resident Mission with minimal turnover in project officers. ADB was responsive to government requests, providing prompt feedback and approvals as needed. This validation considers the performance of ADB satisfactory. IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT, LESSONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Overall Assessment and Ratings 30. The PCR rated the project successful (see table). This validation likewise assesses the project successful based on an assessment of the project as relevant, effective, efficient, and likely sustainable. The project contributed directly to institutional strengthening and capacity building, and to irrigation and drainage rehabilitation. This directly contributed to improved agricultural land quality and productivity, as stated in the project outcome. However, the targeted decrease in land area with soil salinity was only partially met, and not all output targets were fully met, despite a substantial cost increase. 31. In addition, this validation assesses the PCR less than satisfactory based on the brevity of the evaluation of the performance evaluation section, and the lack of references to data used (para. 36). Overall Ratings Validation Criteria PCR IED Review Reason for Disagreement and/or Comments Relevance Relevant Relevant Effectiveness Highly effective Effective Most but not all output targets were met. In addition, this validation adjusted the outcome target on soil salinity to substantially but not fully met. The results cannot be validated beyond an effective rating. Efficiency Efficient Efficient Sustainability Likely Likely sustainable sustainable Overall assessment Successful Successful Preliminary assessment of Substantial Satisfactory Para. 27 impact Borrower and executing Satisfactory Satisfactory agency Performance of ADB Satisfactory Satisfactory Quality of PCR Less than Satisfactory Para. 36 ADB = Asian Development Bank, IED = Independent Evaluation Department, PCR = project completion report. Note: From May 2012, IED views the PCR rating terminology of "partly" or "less" as equivalent to "less than" and uses this terminology for its own rating categories to improve clarity. Source: ADB Independent Evaluation Department.

11 9 B. Lessons 32. This validation agrees with the lessons summarized in the PCR. The PCR noted the importance of the remedial measures implemented after the MTR mission to speed up implementation progress, and the usefulness of GEF cofinancing for agricultural projects with environment-sensitive issues. It also highlighted the importance of careful planning in the design, scheduling, resource allocation, and implementation arrangements related to beneficiary contribution through on-farm works. 33. The time line for civil works awards was often ambitious and future similar projects would benefit from a more in-depth analysis of local procurement conditions and more realistic time lines, especially for major contracts. The project also provides valuable lessons in discrepancies between policy formulation and implementation (see para. 14 on the issuance of quota decrees but lacking implementation at the local level). Future projects also need to continue the push to modernize agriculture and address sustainability. This sector and future projects could benefit from a more thorough risk analysis concerning price volatility in newly deregulated markets and the effects such volatility could have on both financial and economic viability. This would most likely support the continued move to other crops (i.e., horticulture) and to more conservation- oriented methods. C. Recommendations for Follow-Up 34. This validation subscribes to the project-related recommendations of the PCR. Among others, it highlights the need for future monitoring by the government of project outputs related to drainage and irrigation, and for continuing support to the water users associations to ensure their sustainability. Based on the successful implementation of the project, the PCR also recommended the use of the Rural Restructuring Agency as the executing agency for future similar projects. V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP A. Monitoring and Reporting 35. Following the establishment of the PMO, a monitoring unit was established and quarterly progress reports were provided throughout implementation. Audits were completed regularly in accordance with requirements. The GAP was monitored by a gender specialist engaged by the PMO, and the environmental monitoring plan was regularly monitored and environmental impact assessment reports submitted. The additional technical and financial support from GEF was instrumental in monitoring environmental impact. Overall, project monitoring and reporting was adequate and facilitated regular progress reporting and reliable evaluation of the project. B. Comments on Project Completion Report Quality 36. Overall, this validation finds the quality of the PCR less than satisfactory this despite the fact that its content is concise, the format consistent with PCR guidelines, and includes a wellreasoned set of lessons and recommendations. However, the brevity of the assessment in the evaluation performance section, particularly on relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency limits the capability to adequately evaluate the PCR. This is further exacerbated by the lack of comparison data because the baseline survey was not undertaken early in the project as planned, and the monitoring and evaluation system was likewise delayed. There are also contradictions between the final project report and the PCR on the attainment of outputs, with the PCR more positive on the achievements made. The information presented in the final report in 2015, however, is better reasoned. For example, the project intended to increase irrigation efficiency from 37% in 2005 to 57% in The PCR, based on interviews, claimed that this target has been achieved with no explanation. The final project report stated that the target cannot be met as no on-farm irrigation

12 10 and drainage rehabilitation activities were undertaken apart from the three demonstration farms. Perhaps progress was made between the final progress report 2015 and the PCR in 2016 but this was not achieved in If progress was made, it should have been discussed and justified in more detail. 37. The PCR could have benefited from positioning the project and its achievements in the context of the overall efforts to modernize the cotton and water sectors. For this, the PCR needed a more detailed description of the calculation of impact and outcome level achievements at project completion, including direct references to related analysis. For example, it would have been useful to have more information (beyond quotas and procurement prices) on the complexities around ongoing sector reforms, other changes in the provision of inputs, and the exchange rate that also affected the benefits to farmers. These would have provided better understanding of the actual outcomes and impacts of the project. Likewise, it would have been useful to benchmark and explain the improvements in reported yields compared to the national yields, which were stagnant over the project period. Set targets were all reported as achieved, some substantially exceeding targets. However, this coincided with an increase in costs, which questions the appropriateness of the initial targets. The PCR addressed the issue of the increased costs but could have gone further by explaining the relationship with the original targets. Under efficiency, to validate the EIRR, it is important for the methodology and assumptions to be clearly articulated. In addressing these issues, para. 5, Appendix 7 of the PCR did not provide the necessary information and linkages to assess the subsequent sections. In comparison, the assumptions presented in the report and recommendation of the President were much clearer. C. Data Sources for Validation 38. The PCR, report and recommendation of the President, loan review mission reports, loan consultant s project final report, and other project processing documents were used as data sources for this validation. D. Recommendation for Independent Evaluation Department Follow-Up 39. There are no imminent needs for further follow-up by IED. However, to independently assess project outcome and further examine the robustness of O&M and the environmental monitoring systems, a project performance evaluation report by the IED could be considered.